Franklin Graham peppered Obama about ties to Islam

So I agree the right to privacy should be protected, as it was protected by the Court in Griswold vs Connecticut. I disagree the right to privacy is protected when that privacy is used to harm another person.....as it is in the case of abortion.

Well said. Thanks.

The mainstream denominations have chosen not to be bound by the Bible whenever it speaks of things that they do not like.

Or is it that they chose to not be "bound" by someone else's or other's interpretation of what it means in 2008?

Well you can say that you don't care what the Bible says, and that's perfectly honest. However, when they find something they like, they let the Bible speak literally. Passages from Amos, for example, are not subject to the "evolving standards" in the way that, say, Romans is.

I'm not suggesting that people cannot make a case that is different from mine on a whole host of issues, be it capital punishment, predestination, transsubstantiation, alcohol use, eternal security, etc. I have strong opinions on all these things but I can see that the Bible can be reasonably interpreted in different ways.

To say, however, that the Bible does not condemn the killing of children is ludicrous. The question becomes whether the Bible speaks of fetuses as children, and in the case of John the Baptist, it clearly does.

To say, however, that the Bible does not condemn the killing of children is ludicrous. The question becomes whether the Bible speaks of fetuses as children, and in the case of John the Baptist, it clearly does.

Well, although I agree that the killing of children, including fetuses, is to be condemned, I believe that the moral authority for that condemnation should and does exist outside strictly Biblical admonitions.

That is not to say that there is necessarily anything wrong with Biblical admonitions, per sa- to the extent that we are able to comprehend and experience them in the context of our larger life experiences.

Ziggy, as far as US law is concerned, I agree with your assessment. I do not particularly want to make everything immoral illegal (particularly as I believe that everybody does something wrong, or at very least fails to do something right, each and ever day).

I wasn't arguing so much that abortion should be illegal because the Bible says so (I was against killing the innocent before I was a Christian). I was saying that if someone uses the Bible as authoritative, they ought not "cherry pick" what they like and call it Gospel, and then throw out what they don't as "open to interpretation."

The Scriptures are clear that wages are to be paid justly. The WalMarts are in clear violation of this as evidenced from them having to pay over a hundred thousand workers for making them work off the clock. I don't think the Waltons should have been able to oppose abortion on Biblical grounds but then say that the whole "just wages" thing was "open to interpretation." It works for the right and the left.

Now, if those denominations were honest enough to say that they really don't hold the Bible as authoritative, I would have no qualms. Consistent liberals do not bother me in the least. However (and I must admit this is a little rage from my upbringing), I really get a visceral reaction when on one Sunday we must do as the Bible says (complete with a Scriptural admonition that we are expected to respect) only for the next Sunday the Bible's clear language to be rejected as outdated or what have you.

The UCC, which is the church of my mom and that of Barack Obama (and the one that I was confined to as a lad--several churches in the UCC merge with Unitarian ones, including the one at which I worked as a teen), has this "God is still speaking" campaign with a slogan "never put a period where God has put a comma." While this is very cute, they would NEVER put a comma after "pay your workers their wages justly" but they feel they can put one after "what God has joined together let not man seperate."

What becomes shamefully obvious is that for these people, they themselves are the scribes and wisemen, and not the Bible. The Bible becomes co-opted and treated shamefully, almost as a prop for their vaudeville acts.

Incidentally, when I was 17, thinking I was rejecting "Christianity" when really I was just rejecting the UCC, I left the church and did not return to work there, either. Later that year I became a Christian and tried to go back to the church, and didn't last one Sunday. The Transfiguration was to have had a comma after it, while the Lord's Prayer was not to be changed.

As far as the Constitution is concerned I think it must be amended. My reading of the 14th amendment is that "equal opportunity" is bestowed upon "those born" rather than "those conceived."

Constitutionally speaking I think the place to have the debate right now should be the states. I think the 10th amendment runs contrary to Roe v Wade, and how one can say they are interpreting the Constitution when splitting a pregnancy into trimesters I haven't the foggiest.

SheikBen wrote:Incidentally, when I was 17, thinking I was rejecting "Christianity" when really I was just rejecting the UCC, I left the church and did not return to work there, either. Later that year I became a Christian and tried to go back to the church, and didn't last one Sunday. The Transfiguration was to have had a comma after it, while the Lord's Prayer was not to be changed.

Well Mike, you and I both obviously still struggle over our early church and religious "authority" experiences. But in how we chose to live, ones with others, I don't think there is that much difference between us.

SheikBen wrote:I wasn't arguing so much that abortion should be illegal because the Bible says so (I was against killing the innocent before I was a Christian). I was saying that if someone uses the Bible as authoritative, they ought not "cherry pick" what they like and call it Gospel, and then throw out what they don't as "open to interpretation."

Now, if those denominations were honest enough to say that they really don't hold the Bible as authoritative, I would have no qualms. Consistent liberals do not bother me in the least. However (and I must admit this is a little rage from my upbringing), I really get a visceral reaction when on one Sunday we must do as the Bible says (complete with a Scriptural admonition that we are expected to respect) only for the next Sunday the Bible's clear language to be rejected as outdated or what have you.

But you have the same dynamic among non-liberals. "Bible based Christian" churches and sects pick and chose their particular Biblical interpretations and emphasis, as well. "Christian" church doctrines- as well as individual congregation practices outside the official doctrine- can and do vary widely.

I think that is the case at times, but I do see many churches (and believe that mine is one of them) that take the whole Bible as authoritative, even when we may wish it would say something else.

Still, I do think that many on the right ignore the more liberal-sounding parts of the Scriptures, such as praying for those who mistreat you, paying a worker the wages they deserve, giving someone one day off in seven, respecting a nation's leaders (ie Bill Clinton), what have you.

I was saying that if someone uses the Bible as authoritative, they ought not "cherry pick" what they like and call it Gospel, and then throw out what they don't as "open to interpretation."

This is exactly why I question Sherm, and any other person who calls themselves a Christian, on how it is they support abortion or candidates who support abortion.

I don't believe in the Bible as the "word of God" or "divinely inspired".
I don't claim to be a Christian, though.

All these "legalisms" are contrary to Jesus' teachings imo.

He said the highest Commandments were to love God with all your heart, etc. and love your neighbor as yourself.

"On these two Commandments hang all the Law and Prophets".

Not to be caught up in recitations, chants, and other superfluous legalisms.

Sherm is very selective in what parts of the Bible he pays attention to. Mike and I have listed him quotes from his Bible but he rejects them.

Well in this instance your Biblical citations are not relevant because I told you my opposition to abortion is not based on religion or scripture.

You are using a straw man argument.

I never claimed every thing that is included in the Bible is literally true.

There are parables, etc. that are used to convey a message but are not literally true although they convey a truth.

And the reason I say those two Commandments are superior to the others is that Jesus himself said so.

(that is why it was in quotations.)

But that does not mean I am any less pro-life than you guys who claim to be so righteous and holier than thou on this issue.

You guys just get your religion and politics all entertwined.

When you vote for candidates who support abortion, you support abortion.

That's the bottom line.

Stephanie wrote:When you vote for candidates who support abortion, you support abortion.

That's the bottom line.

HORSEHOCKY

I don't give a damn if a Candidate supports abortion, ...... is an atheist, …. agnostic, …. Jew or ….. Christian.

A queer or Muslim, ……. YES, …… because I don’t think either can be trusted.

If Party Membership or abortion is your #1 Priority for determining your Candidates qualification for an elected Office ……… then you deserve the Government that you got at all levels: federal, state, county and local.

And you don't have a right to bitch about anything they do because you are part of the problem that elects and/or re-elects the incompetents and misfits to decision making positions.



.

shermangeneral wrote:Well in this instance your Biblical citations are not relevant because I told you my opposition to abortion is not based on religion or scripture.

You are using a straw man argument.

I never claimed every thing that is included in the Bible is literally true.

There are parables, etc. that are used to convey a message but are not literally true although they convey a truth.

And the reason I say those two Commandments are superior to the others is that Jesus himself said so.

(that is why it was in quotations.)

But that does not mean I am any less pro-life than you guys who claim to be so righteous and holier than thou on this issue.

You guys just get your religion and politics all entertwined.

Sherm, how is it possible that Stephanie the agnostic has her religion and politics intertwined?

As long as you stop referencing the Bible to make your leftist arguments, we'll leave you alone on the issue. If you continue, then we have to accuse you of intertwining your religion and politics, and selectively approving or rejecting the Bible based on whether it makes you happy. I have never questioned whether you were pro-life, Sherm. I do have to say that if you are pro-life then you must believe that the fetuses are humans (if they are not, why do you care what a mother does with them?) And if fetuses are humans, then abortion is murder, and John Edwards fully supports it.

Sam,

While I would not want someone who was not a Christian and who was having sex outside of marriage to be the pastor of my church, why do you believe that someone who is gay or Muslim would necessarily do any worse of a job than the luminaries we have in office?

Bill Clinton was neither gay nor Muslim. Now a gay, Muslim Clinton would have at least been more interesting.

Seriously, though, I think too many people voted for Clinton and Carter because they were Southern and they were Baptists, and that stereotypical "they're one of us" allowed these cretins to win.

SheikBen wrote:Sam,

While I would not want someone who was not a Christian and who was having sex outside of marriage to be the pastor of my church, why do you believe that someone who is gay or Muslim would necessarily do any worse of a job than the luminaries we have in office?

With Muslims ...... there is absolutely no "separation of church and state". The church is in control ......... and it controls the state.

Thus, if a professed Muslim is elected POTUS ......... then he/she is automatically in violation of his/her Religious belief or our COTUS, ..... if he/she takes the Oath of Office.



.

Sam,

Why can't "queers" and Muslims be trusted? A candidates religion does not matter to me unless that candidate is a fanatic. Religious fanatics come in all stripes......Christian, Jew, Muslim and atheist. I've never encountered a fanatical agnostic. That's like an oxymoron.

Abortion is a deciding factor for me. I will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate. There was a time when I would, but I'm older now and have been paying attention a whole lot longer and I see how they opperate. I've seen enough judicial nominees get Borked to know, if there is anybody I can't trust is the pro-abortion politician.

I won't vote for candidate A over candidate B just because candidate A is prolife and B is not. Jay Wolfe is pro-life and I won't be voting for him.

I think if you won't consider voting for somebody just because of their sexual preference, that is plain silly.

I certainly fear for anyone who is not a Christian.

I also fear for anyone who is a politician.

I absolutely believe gay sex to be morally wrong, just as I do premarital and extramarital sex. I also don't know whether Bush kept himself pure and don't want to much investigating there.

It's nice to have a standard. I would like for my President to be a man or woman of great integrity, including sexual integrity. I also know that the culture wars right now need to be fought in the church. Available statistics from Barna indicate that the evangelical church looks a bit too much like the non-evangelical country to be leaving it's own concerns alone.

To put it another way, I would like to see Christians in the United States act a bit more Biblically, and I think that would do a lot more good than selecting a President based on not being gay.

SheikBen wrote:I absolutely believe gay sex to be morally wrong, just as I do premarital and extramarital sex. I also don't know whether Bush kept himself pure and don't want to much investigating there.

It's nice to have a standard. I would like for my President to be a man or woman of great integrity, including sexual integrity. ..................................

And including integrity of official veracity? Or would you not want too much investigating there either?

Ziggy,

I think it's high time that Bush answer his accusers. "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."

I do think that, just like with the Republicans and Clinton, the Democrats in Congress who want to investigate Bush are driven less by a search for truth and more on a search for blood. However, an open, thorough investigation of the government from top to bottom, including the President, would be most welcome.

I do think that, just like with the Republicans and Clinton, the Democrats in Congress who want to investigate Bush are driven less by a search for truth and more on a search for blood. However, an open, thorough investigation of the government from top to bottom, including the President, would be most welcome.

Well said! I'd add and Congress to that statement too, though.

Stephanie wrote:Sam,

Why can't "queers" and Muslims be trusted? A candidates religion does not matter to me unless that candidate is a fanatic. Religious fanatics come in all stripes......Christian, Jew, Muslim and atheist. I've never encountered a fanatical agnostic. That's like an oxymoron.

Steph, concerning Muslims, .... I JUST TOLD YOU, ....... "One can not serve two gods".

Stephanie, .... can you serve two husbands that live in different households?

I don't think so.

Can you serve even 2, 8 or 100 children living with those two husbands that live in different households?

I don't think so.

Stephanie wrote:Abortion is a deciding factor for me. I will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate. There was a time when I would, but I'm older now and have been paying attention a whole lot longer and I see how they opperate. I've seen enough judicial nominees get Borked to know, if there is anybody I can't trust is the pro-abortion politician.

Steph, please, ..... honestly and truthfully, ......... answer the following questions for me:

1. What does your husband's belief concerning abortion ..... have to do with his abilities of being a great chef to all the patrons that choose to eat at the restaurant where he works?

(Steph’s answer) ___________________________________

2. What does the beliefs of the Mayors of Charleston or Dunbar concerning abortion …… have to do with their abilities to effectively manage the business of their respective cities in the best interests of all their residents?

(Steph’s answer) ___________________________________

3. What does the beliefs of the Sheriff of Kanawha County concerning abortion …… have to do with his abilities to perform the duties of the job he was elected to do in the best interests of all the residents of the county?

(Steph’s answer) ___________________________________

4. What does the beliefs of the Governor of West Virginia concerning abortion …… have to do with his abilities to perform the duties of the job he was elected to do in the best interests of all the residents of the state?

(Steph’s answer) ___________________________________

5. What does the beliefs of a Senator of West Virginia concerning abortion …. have to do with his abilities to perform the duties of the job he was elected to do in the best interests of all the residents of the state?

(Steph’s answer) ___________________________________

Stephanie wrote:I won't vote for candidate A over candidate B just because candidate A is prolife and B is not. Jay Wolfe is pro-life and I won't be voting for him.

Stephanie, what if candidate B is adamantly pro-abortion? You will simply refuse to vote for any candidate for that Office, …… RIGHT.

Stephanie wrote:I think if you won't consider voting for somebody just because of their sexual preference, that is plain silly.

HA, and I am the one that is silly?

Stephanie, do you know what the PRIMARY REASON is for the rapid increase in the Divorce Rate in the US over the past 50 years?

That primary reason is ……… the “priority numbering sequence” of the female’s list of ….. Husband Characteristics and Attributes …… has become more and more FUBAR as each year passes.

And it is that same FUBAR “priority numbering sequence” of ….. Political Candidates Characteristics and Attributes ……. that is responsible for all of our Government entities ….. “Going to Hell in a Handbasket”.

And Steph, ....... I would never vote for a queer ........... because I will not vote for anyone who does not even like themselves ....... and/or ...... who are literally ashamed of their own actions and deeds.



.

1. What does your husband's belief concerning abortion ..... have to do with his abilities of being a great chef to all the patrons that choose to eat at the restaurant where he works?

Zilch

2. What does the beliefs of the Mayors of Charleston or Dunbar concerning abortion …… have to do with their abilities to effectively manage the business of their respective cities in the best interests of all their residents?

4. What does the beliefs of the Governor of West Virginia concerning abortion …… have to do with his abilities to perform the duties of the job he was elected to do in the best interests of all the residents of the state?

Mayors & governors both make decisions involving how funds are appropriated. In cities and states across America, mayors and governors decide whether or not to provide money to nonprofit abortion centers. They also are involved in decisions like whether or not abortion is going to be a covered procedure for municiple and state employees healthcare plans. Governors also have veto power regarding abortion laws in their state.

5. What does the beliefs of a Senator of West Virginia concerning abortion …. have to do with his abilities to perform the duties of the job he was elected to do in the best interests of all the residents of the state?

Senators are involved in confirming judicial nominees to federal courts. They also vote on funding of abortions and other abortion related laws.

I've never voted for a sheriff before. That isn't an elected position in RI. To my knowledge, it isn't a position at all. RI has police chief's who are appointed by mayors, town administrators or town councils depending on the form of government a local community has. I'm not sure I would let that influence my decision in voting for a candidate for sheriff.

I don't know about how correct you are regarding a woman's list being FUBAR over the years. Both of my aunts divorced their husbands for the same reason I divorced my first....for being lying, cheating SOB's. Not a one of them was willing to give up the mistress so we all left. My first, and one aunt's ex eventually went on to marry their lovers. My ex and his new wife divorced after about 6 years. My former "uncle" and his wife remain married but live in different states. He visits her in Maine and she visits him in RI. They spend about 2 months out of the year together. I'm not sure I'd call that much of a marriage.

I think the rise in the divorce rate has more to do with women having more choices. My grandmother remained married to her abusive husband until he died because she had 5 kids she couldn't support on her own. She had no options....women didn't have a whole lot of options back in the 40's through the 60's and even once her kids were grown I'm sure she felt trapped in that marriage after 30 years and 5 kids. From the time I was old enough to remember she had her own bedroom. As soon as one opened up she moved into it.

I know a number of "queers" who aren't ashamed of themselves, or their actions, or their deeds.